RugbyRebels

Surely Fagerson is the form 8 no?

Bet you lot never thought I'd be ousted as resident SMB dickhead after going strong for well over a decade.

ARM wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

switchskier wrote:I know that I'm a broken record, buy Matt Scott is just a better, more threatening player than Lang or Grigg, probably Harris too. And it's not as if either has been in scintillating form.

Stepping back, the options in the pack are pretty uninspiring. All can play international level rugby but it does lack one or two great players who can lift the overall level. I'd hoped McInally was going to be one after his 2018 6N but that now just looks like a run of good form.

On the other hand there are real exciting talents in the backs, but we might not get to see much of it if there's no decent ball to play off. Hope toonies been working on a better strategy.

I know a lot of fans are against the concept but our failure to acquire a project hooker to "naturalise" was one of the biggest failures of that SJ led project a while back.

I’m actually very happy with how the pack is beginning to shape up.

We now have two full front rows that you could throw in to Test rugby and not be worried about. In fact we should be looking to dominate many teams. Not that long ago we were scraping about at LH with Reid (much as I love him), Dell, Marfo and Bhatti. Sutherland, Kebble plus Schoeman in due course is light years ahead. Our hookers are both top quality; Fraser Brown is in great nick. Fagerson found himself last year and Nel is a great old pro.

Plenty of options in the 2 row and Ritchie / Watson are Test quality flankers. Still a bit light at 8, but plenty of players who can do a job.

Meanwhile we have some of the best attacking talents in Euro rugby behind the scrum.

My glass is half full.

I think that my optimism has been worn down by years of watching scottish teams and right now I can't locate it.

We've got good options on the loose head (imported ones) but the hookers are inconsistent. Faegerson is great but Nel is far from the player he once was and Berghan still gives me no confidence.

Our locks have some great individual attributes but none are the full package. In the back row Ritchie/Watson/Faegerson all have talents but playing all three isn't a great mix.

There's lots of players capable of playing test rugby to a high standard in that lot. However there's not that special player that goes out and dominates a game on his own and can turn the tide. There's no Ijote/AWJ/O'Mahony. Ritchie or Faegerson senior may become that player, but haven't done it yet. Without that special player I feel that there's a relatively low ceiling.

I sort of understand what you mean in terms of leadership but Itoje is the only one of those three I'd be desperate for playing wise. I'd rather keep Johnny Gray over AWG at this stage (though depends on form) and I'd take Watson or Ritchie over AWG.

We desperately need to win some big games though to prove a lot of these players' quality.

Cameo wrote:I sort of understand what you mean in terms of leadership but Itoje is the only one of those three I'd be desperate for playing wise. I'd rather keep Johnny Gray over AWG at this stage (though depends on form) and I'd take Watson or Ritchie over AWG.

We desperately need to win some big games though to prove a lot of these players' quality.

I'd definitely partner AWJ with Gray ahead of any of our options, and I say that as someone who's not his biggest fan.

Johnny Gray is an interesting one. Thought that Stephen Jones (I know) made an acute observation the other day when he said that he doesn't have many standout moments of his own but everything that he does do enables others to standout. Are any of our options that good if they don't jump off the screen with Johnny doing lots of their dirty work? Have any if our last cks looked as good as the uncapped Johnny Hill has with Gray playing alongside him?

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Bet you lot never thought I'd be ousted as resident SMB dickhead after going strong for well over a decade.

I doubt you`ll give up that cherished title easily.

switchskier wrote:

Cameo wrote:I sort of understand what you mean in terms of leadership but Itoje is the only one of those three I'd be desperate for playing wise. I'd rather keep Johnny Gray over AWG at this stage (though depends on form) and I'd take Watson or Ritchie over AWG.

We desperately need to win some big games though to prove a lot of these players' quality.

I'd definitely partner AWJ with Gray ahead of any of our options, and I say that as someone who's not his biggest fan.

Johnny Gray is an interesting one. Thought that Stephen Jones (I know) made an acute observation the other day when he said that he doesn't have many standout moments of his own but everything that he does do enables others to standout. Are any of our options that good if they don't jump off the screen with Johnny doing lots of their dirty work? Have any if our last cks looked as good as the uncapped Johnny Hill has with Gray playing alongside him?

I feel that our other locks have each had spells when they have shown potential but not quite strung it together for long enough. Cummings and Carmichael are the two with the real athleticism (maybe Skinner too) but we could do with one of them having a big year. Gilchrist has looked very average the last few weeks.

Cummings can make a big impact I think. He's got the aggression and physicality. He started so well for Scotland but it already feels like our tragic lack of cohesion in our forwards' gameplan is wearing him down a bit, like we do with everyone. Skinner too. These are the players that we need to be building a platform for, to expend all that energy and aggression carrying the ball forward. We just don't seem to have the handling skills in our tight forwards, or the organisation in our support play, breakdown, presentation etc. to get things moving consistently.

Toolis and Gilchrist just feel slightly like a generation that has passed now. Toolis at least offers a reliable alternative to Gray as tight lock, just doing the nuts and bolts, but Gilchrist (like Hamilton before him) has 1 great game and then 9 in a row of nothing but conceding penalties. Is Carmichael established as first choice at Edinburgh yet? Is he ever fit enough to do so?

Mikey Brown wrote:Cummings can make a big impact I think. He's got the aggression and physicality. He started so well for Scotland but it already feels like our tragic lack of cohesion in our forwards' gameplan is wearing him down a bit, like we do with everyone. Skinner too. These are the players that we need to be building a platform for, to expend all that energy and aggression carrying the ball forward. We just don't seem to have the handling skills in our tight forwards, or the organisation in our support play, breakdown, presentation etc. to get things moving consistently.

Toolis and Gilchrist just feel slightly like a generation that has passed now. Toolis at least offers a reliable alternative to Gray as tight lock, just doing the nuts and bolts, but Gilchrist (like Hamilton before him) has 1 great game and then 9 in a row of nothing but conceding penalties. Is Carmichael established as first choice at Edinburgh yet? Is he ever fit enough to do so?

the pack can do what is needed, problem is new law interpretations and pro team level coaching. Everyone has issues with the interpretations, lack of consistency etc. Time will solve this (and refs will revert to ignoring loads of stuff) Glasgow have a transition with Wilson/Brown, but I don't expect too much of an issue there, perhaps breakdown gets better. Edinburgh a different matter. Cockerill slow slow was shown up badly last week. Players far too slow to support the carrier, resulting in isolation, in turn slow shit ball or turnover. For all their huge improvement, this has been an issue all the time. And he keeps rewarding Gilchrist's stupid pens by picking him, when boot up arse and a spell out of the squad is needed

Carmichael is injured again/still - with concussion. Very worrying.

Scottish Caley Fan wrote:
Fwiw, I would love to watch more club rugby other than Pro 14 (I have saw 3 games so far, 2 involving Edinburgh and one Glasgow game) so that I can be more engaging with you peeps. I know I'm not a Rugby Guru but that doesn't give you, or anyone for that matter, the right to pick on me specifically, nobody else has picked up on my lack of Rugby knowledge.

FWIW, its easy to find out what position a player plays in. For Skinner, see Exeter Chiefs website, or Aviva Premiership or European Rugby, or many media sites like Ultimate Rugby or Itsrugby provide squad and player data. Don't need to be a guru, just able and willing to use google.

There is no intent to bully and if that's how you feel then that's a shame and not what I want. But I will call out nonsense

Tobylerone wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Bet you lot never thought I'd be ousted as resident SMB dickhead after going strong for well over a decade.

I doubt you`ll give up that cherished title easily.

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Puja

Full fixtures for anyone who also didn't actually know who/when we're actually playing.

Scotland v Georgia
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
Friday 23rd October 2020
Kick-off: TBC

Wales v Scotland
Parc y Scarlets, Llanelli
Saturday 31st October 2020
Kick-off: 2:15pm

Italy v Scotland
Venue TBC
Saturday 14th November 2020
Kick-off: 12:45pm

Scotland v France
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
Sunday 22nd November 2020
Kick-off: 3:15pm

Scotland v Fiji
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
Saturday 28th November 2020
Kick-off: 1:45pm

It would be easy to see games 1, 3 and 5 as considerably lesser tasks, but we've made a mess of so many of those games in the past few years. I'd agree we need to give some of the fringe players a chance to battle it out for first XV spots in the Georgia game though.

I'm not sure if GT is planning to cut this squad down or wants the numbers so he can rotate across the 5 games? Given the rest weekend between Wales and Italy it still seems like overkill. I would think we can go with a mostly full strength squad throughout.

I hope we take a proper look at any newcomers though. Rather than what GT often does and have them come and go from the bench without much meaningful game-time, then we go in to next season still not knowing if Kebble, Steele, Lang, Van Der Merwe can cut it or not. Equally do TTRI, Cowan, CDP, Weir, Hoyland truly have anything to offer at this level?

septic 9 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Cummings can make a big impact I think. He's got the aggression and physicality. He started so well for Scotland but it already feels like our tragic lack of cohesion in our forwards' gameplan is wearing him down a bit, like we do with everyone. Skinner too. These are the players that we need to be building a platform for, to expend all that energy and aggression carrying the ball forward. We just don't seem to have the handling skills in our tight forwards, or the organisation in our support play, breakdown, presentation etc. to get things moving consistently.

Toolis and Gilchrist just feel slightly like a generation that has passed now. Toolis at least offers a reliable alternative to Gray as tight lock, just doing the nuts and bolts, but Gilchrist (like Hamilton before him) has 1 great game and then 9 in a row of nothing but conceding penalties. Is Carmichael established as first choice at Edinburgh yet? Is he ever fit enough to do so?

the pack can do what is needed, problem is new law interpretations and pro team level coaching. Everyone has issues with the interpretations, lack of consistency etc. Time will solve this (and refs will revert to ignoring loads of stuff) Glasgow have a transition with Wilson/Brown, but I don't expect too much of an issue there, perhaps breakdown gets better. Edinburgh a different matter. Cockerill slow slow was shown up badly last week. Players far too slow to support the carrier, resulting in isolation, in turn slow shit ball or turnover. For all their huge improvement, this has been an issue all the time. And he keeps rewarding Gilchrist's stupid pens by picking him, when boot up arse and a spell out of the squad is needed

Carmichael is injured again/still - with concussion. Very worrying.

Can they? In more than a one-off performance? You say they can do what's needed, but then point to a number of issues that all the Scottish sides suffer from regularly. It may not be directly GT's fault, but there must be some process between all the top coaches to try and fix these flaws? Ball retention is generally so poor and I think these new law interpretations are only going to make us more of a target in that sense. If Townsend is finding all his players are poor in this area it doesn't seem good enough to just blame it on the club coaching.

septic 9 wrote:

Scottish Caley Fan wrote:
Fwiw, I would love to watch more club rugby other than Pro 14 (I have saw 3 games so far, 2 involving Edinburgh and one Glasgow game) so that I can be more engaging with you peeps. I know I'm not a Rugby Guru but that doesn't give you, or anyone for that matter, the right to pick on me specifically, nobody else has picked up on my lack of Rugby knowledge.

FWIW, its easy to find out what position a player plays in. For Skinner, see Exeter Chiefs website, or Aviva Premiership or European Rugby, or many media sites like Ultimate Rugby or Itsrugby provide squad and player data. Don't need to be a guru, just able and willing to use google.

There is no intent to bully and if that's how you feel then that's a shame and not what I want. But I will call out nonsense

I have said I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and am standing by that . Its silly to fall out over something as small as this, we both support Scotland and want the best for them.

Now I think it's time to move on from this .

The Georgia game is on BBC by the way peeps .Lets hope DVDM (winger), Steele (Scrum Half) and Kebble (prop) get some game time .

Mikey Brown wrote:

septic 9 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Cummings can make a big impact I think. He's got the aggression and physicality. He started so well for Scotland but it already feels like our tragic lack of cohesion in our forwards' gameplan is wearing him down a bit, like we do with everyone. Skinner too. These are the players that we need to be building a platform for, to expend all that energy and aggression carrying the ball forward. We just don't seem to have the handling skills in our tight forwards, or the organisation in our support play, breakdown, presentation etc. to get things moving consistently.

Toolis and Gilchrist just feel slightly like a generation that has passed now. Toolis at least offers a reliable alternative to Gray as tight lock, just doing the nuts and bolts, but Gilchrist (like Hamilton before him) has 1 great game and then 9 in a row of nothing but conceding penalties. Is Carmichael established as first choice at Edinburgh yet? Is he ever fit enough to do so?

the pack can do what is needed, problem is new law interpretations and pro team level coaching. Everyone has issues with the interpretations, lack of consistency etc. Time will solve this (and refs will revert to ignoring loads of stuff) Glasgow have a transition with Wilson/Brown, but I don't expect too much of an issue there, perhaps breakdown gets better. Edinburgh a different matter. Cockerill slow slow was shown up badly last week. Players far too slow to support the carrier, resulting in isolation, in turn slow shit ball or turnover. For all their huge improvement, this has been an issue all the time. And he keeps rewarding Gilchrist's stupid pens by picking him, when boot up arse and a spell out of the squad is needed

Carmichael is injured again/still - with concussion. Very worrying.

Can they? In more than a one-off performance? You say they can do what's needed, but then point to a number of issues that all the Scottish sides suffer from regularly. It may not be directly GT's fault, but there must be some process between all the top coaches to try and fix these flaws? Ball retention is generally so poor and I think these new law interpretations are only going to make us more of a target in that sense. If Townsend is finding all his players are poor in this area it doesn't seem good enough to just blame it on the club coaching.

Seems worth mentioning two things:

1) most of us saw a noticeable improvement from the pack in the 6N this year (although I missed how we used to play) so I think it is just a Scottish gloom to say nothing changes

2) issues with winning good quick ball are a good chunk of rugby. We should, and do, have plans to improve t but equally all the other teams have plans to make it worse. Like most mid ranking teams Scotland, Edinburgh and Glasgow have games where it is better and games when it is worse (although I'm not sure whether Cockerill cares about quick ball - I think he just likes Edinburgh to grind)

Yes it’s a massive part of the game and I’m not saying it’s a simple fix, but there are errors in what we’re doing that you can see even on the days we get away with it.

I don’t disagree with either of those points, but I do also think something about our tactics or selections leaves opportunities for other sides to exploit in those areas. I’ve probably blurred over improvements in the 6 nations a bit. I was really waiting for them to final it back up a tough performance against France before getting too excited.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yes it’s a massive part of the game and I’m not saying it’s a simple fix, but there are errors in what we’re doing that you can see even on the days we get away with it.

I don’t disagree with either of those points, but I do also think something about our tactics or selections leaves opportunities for other sides to exploit in those areas. I’ve probably blurred over improvements in the 6 nations a bit. I was really waiting for them to final it back up a tough performance against France before getting too excited.

we played a very high tempo game. This leads to more turnover opportunities to opposition. This isn't unique to Scotland. All teams doing this rely on scoring more than they concede. Our problem was even when winning and scoring shed loads, we were conceding like a sieve - so have a day when less than absolutely top form, we score less but still concede at the same level.

This is the balance Townsend was seeking to sort, to reverse, with emphasis on better defence. It looked promising, but the attack looked a bit blunter as we didn't run everything any more. Glasgow under Wilson so far look exactly the same. Work in progress.
BTW I'm not blaming the clubs coaching. Club coaches need to do what they need to do. But as Cameo points out Cockerill is more focussed possession rather than quick ball, power over speed. It does mean (as edin's last game) some forwards walk or jog back knowing the ball will be slow and another set up. Instead of sprint to position giving options for head up stuff, or another ruck if its not on. This IMHO leads to "lazy" habits which come to the fore as a match progresses and players tire (head, ie concentration goes first). There are "mechanisms" or liasion between the club camps and Scotland - all scottish coaches are regular visitors to club training sessions and make input, but at the end of the day the club coach coaches his club, his job depends on what they do not what Scotland does

What will be interesting is whether DeVilliers and Tandys influence will continue to shine or whether it was a bit of a dead cat bounce.

For me it is still a big black mark against GT that he allowed Taylor to stick around for so long. Taylor may be a good coach and go on to do well elsewhere but the defence under him was consistently poor and lacking ideas.

Big D wrote:What will be interesting is whether DeVilliers and Tandys influence will continue to shine or whether it was a bit of a dead cat bounce.

For me it is still a big black mark against GT that he allowed Taylor to stick around for so long. Taylor may be a good coach and go on to do well elsewhere but the defence under him was consistently poor and lacking ideas.

Definitely agree. I think the thing with Taylor is that he seems to make a decent initial impact but then I'm not sure he knows how to adapt. The first year under him, we were scoring lots of points from interceptions (though still conceding plenty) and at Glasgow the chop tackling was noticeable. Australia have started well under him too. I don't know if he would blame Townsend (or certain players) for the drop off but I suspect opposition coaches came up with plans that he didn't adapt to.

Also, I think the point Septic makes about the disconnect between Edinburgh and Scotland's style is a good one. While you can't blame Cockerill, one of the few advantages of only having two teams and a small player base is that we can build a bit of a national style, but we don't have that at the moment. The counter argument is that the most important thing we need to build is a winning habit (though personally I think Edinburgh can do that another way).

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:What will be interesting is whether DeVilliers and Tandys influence will continue to shine or whether it was a bit of a dead cat bounce.

For me it is still a big black mark against GT that he allowed Taylor to stick around for so long. Taylor may be a good coach and go on to do well elsewhere but the defence under him was consistently poor and lacking ideas.

Definitely agree. I think the thing with Taylor is that he seems to make a decent initial impact but then I'm not sure he knows how to adapt. The first year under him, we were scoring lots of points from interceptions (though still conceding plenty) and at Glasgow the chop tackling was noticeable. Australia have started well under him too. I don't know if he would blame Townsend (or certain players) for the drop off but I suspect opposition coaches came up with plans that he didn't adapt to.

Also, I think the point Septic makes about the disconnect between Edinburgh and Scotland's style is a good one. While you can't blame Cockerill, one of the few advantages of only having two teams and a small player base is that we can build a bit of a national style, but we don't have that at the moment. The counter argument is that the most important thing we need to build is a winning habit (though personally I think Edinburgh can do that another way).

The point about Edinburgh is a good one. But his (RC) initial challenge was to make Edinburgh competitive, which I think he has done. Now the challenge should be to evolve the way they play or leave so someone else can have a go. The SRU seem sweet on Hodge despite no signs he is capable, which is a worry.

On a different note, no Vellacott or Redpath in the England squad. Not sure they merit a call up, CR might, but they remain potentially available.

Big D wrote:

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:What will be interesting is whether DeVilliers and Tandys influence will continue to shine or whether it was a bit of a dead cat bounce.

For me it is still a big black mark against GT that he allowed Taylor to stick around for so long. Taylor may be a good coach and go on to do well elsewhere but the defence under him was consistently poor and lacking ideas.

Definitely agree. I think the thing with Taylor is that he seems to make a decent initial impact but then I'm not sure he knows how to adapt. The first year under him, we were scoring lots of points from interceptions (though still conceding plenty) and at Glasgow the chop tackling was noticeable. Australia have started well under him too. I don't know if he would blame Townsend (or certain players) for the drop off but I suspect opposition coaches came up with plans that he didn't adapt to.

Also, I think the point Septic makes about the disconnect between Edinburgh and Scotland's style is a good one. While you can't blame Cockerill, one of the few advantages of only having two teams and a small player base is that we can build a bit of a national style, but we don't have that at the moment. The counter argument is that the most important thing we need to build is a winning habit (though personally I think Edinburgh can do that another way).

The point about Edinburgh is a good one. But his (RC) initial challenge was to make Edinburgh competitive, which I think he has done. Now the challenge should be to evolve the way they play or leave so someone else can have a go. The SRU seem sweet on Hodge despite no signs he is capable, which is a worry.

On a different note, no Vellacott or Redpath in the England squad. Not sure they merit a call up, CR might, but they remain potentially available.

I suspect he's not available but on the little that I've seen I'd take Redpath over Lang and Grigg. He's got loads of potential.

Agree entirely with the point that with so few opportunities for playing time it makes sense to have a national playing style. With Wilson at Glasgow maybe that's what's going to happen, but that doesn't feel like the best way to maximise the talent that we have at the minute.

Do we still think Mr Townsend is still under pressure to deliver this autumn or is that the 6N where there is pressure to win in order to dodge the sack?

I know that the chief executive at SRU is a fan because he promised a new deal to GT, at the same time Cockers was getting touted for a new deal, but its gone quiet on both.

For what it's worth, I would give GT another world cup chance but if we fail to make it out of the group again, we act then.

I'm getting sick of all this sacking coach every 2yr if we have bad 6N, its getting as bad as the SFA in football, they also have a tendency to sack managers after every failed campaign.

Scottish Caley Fan wrote: I'm getting sick of all this sacking coach every 2yr if we have bad 6N, its getting as bad as the SFA in football, they also have a tendency to sack managers after every failed campaign.

Not sure I follow tbh. Since the 70s only 3 coaches have had more than 4 years in one sitting; Dickinson, Geech and Telfer.

Townsend, after the autumn, will have coached the 4th most national team games in that time frame. I do wonder if he got the job under different circumstances whether he'd have been sacked after the RWC.

If it all goes to pot this autumn and the 6N his seat will get warm rather than hot. I hope not, some of the players need a big international series.

Knowing they ditched Cotter for him will keep Townsend in longer I would think.

Saying that I don’t think we should be looking at replacing him anyway. We’ve reshuffled the coaches and this last year has been so fragmented that very little can really be learned from this Autumn I think. If we have another tragic 2021 6 nations I guess we’ll get the same questions again.

Townsend has made errors, that's for sure, but he has the best record of any Scottish coach ever. Facts are inconvenient for the naysayers